FIRST NON-FINAL REJECTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a bearing support configured to be mounted to the first part of the blade bearing, a shaft element configured to be mounted to the second part of the blade bearing, a test load unit configured to apply a load in the axial direction to the shaft element, the shaft element is configured to at least partly transfer a load to the blade bearing in claim 1, test rig is configured to confine the load to be applied to the blade bearing by the test load unit to the test rig in claim 2, load transfer component is configured to transfer the applied load to the shaft element in claim 7, load transfer component is configured to be mounted to a first part of a second blade bearing to be tested, a second end of the shaft element is configured to be mounted to the second part of the second blade bearing in claim 9, wherein each test load unit is configured to apply a load via the respective shaft element to a blade bearing to be tested in claim 10, wherein one, two, or each of the blade mounts is configured to be mounted to the first part of a respective blade bearing to be tested in claim 11, a load transfer component that is configured to transfer the load applied by the at least two actuators to the shaft element in claim 12, pivoting mechanism is configured to allow a pivoting of at least a part of the test load unit into a horizontal orientation in claim 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-12, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Diller DE 102013004938 (attached translation for citations).
With respect to claims 1, 4, 5, and 15, Diller teaches a test rig for testing a blade bearing of a wind turbine blade (test stand 10 for blade bearings 15, figures 1-6), wherein the blade bearing comprises a first part and a second part that is rotatable about an axial direction with respect to the first part (inner ring 21 and outer ring 23, paragraph 22), wherein the test rig comprises: a bearing support that is a hub configured to be mounted to the first part of the blade bearing (hub adapter 17 in contact with outer ring 23, paragraph 24); a shaft element (bearing adapter 16) configured to be mounted to the second part of the blade bearing, wherein the shaft element is rotatable with respect to the bearing support (bearing adapter 16 connected to the inner ring 21, paragraph 22); and a test load unit configured to apply a load in the axial direction to the shaft element (radial pressure and compensation elements 22, paragraph 27-36, figures 5 and 6), wherein the shaft element is configured to at least partly transfer a load to the blade bearing (radial pressure and compensation elements 22 compensate for radial tolerances between the claws 18 of the hub adapter 17 and the bearing adapters 16, paragraph 36), wherein the test load unit comprises at least one actuator that is controllable to apply the load (paragraph 31), and testing the blade bearing by rotating the second part of the blade bearing with respect to the bearing support (paragraphs 32 and 36) and controlling the actuator to apply a load in the axial direction to the blade bearing via the shaft element while the blade bearing is being rotated (paragraphs 31 and 36).
With respect to claim 2, Diller teaches wherein the test rig is configured to confine the load to be applied to the blade bearing by the test load unit to the test rig (the test stand 10 is interpreted as confining the load to be applied to the blade bearing, paragraphs 31 and 36, figure 6).
With respect to claim 3, Diller teaches wherein the bearing support comprises at least one mount to which the at least one actuator is mounted (figures 5 and 6), or wherein the bearing support is mounted to a frame, wherein the frame comprises at least one mount to which the at least one actuator is mounted (claw 18 of the hub adapter 17 connected to the pressure and compensation element and a radial pressure and compensation element 22, paragraph 27, figures 5 and 6).
With respect to claim 6, Diller teaches wherein the test rig comprises a frame (interpreted as the frame of the test stand 10), the hub being mounted to the frame, wherein the at least one actuator is mounted to the frame and acts between the test load unit and the frame (figures 5 and 6).
With respect to claim 7, Diller teaches wherein the test load unit comprises a load transfer component (claws 18), wherein the at least one actuator is mounted to the load transfer component to apply a load to the load transfer component (radial pressure and compensation elements 22 compensate for radial tolerances between the claws 18 of the hub adapter 17 and the bearing adapters 16, paragraph 27 and 36, figures 5 and 6), and wherein the load transfer component is configured to transfer the applied load to the shaft element (paragraphs 27 and 36, figures 5 and 6).
With respect to claim 8, Diller teaches wherein the shaft element is rotatable with respect to the load transfer component (paragraph 22).
With respect to claims 9-11, Diller teaches wherein the load transfer component is configured to be mounted to a first part of a second blade bearing to be tested (the test stand having three bearings therein for testing figures 2-6 where the bearings have an outer ring 23, paragraph 22, figures 2-6), the second blade bearing having a second part rotatable with respect to the first part (the other bearings inner ring 21, paragraph 22, figure 2-6), wherein a second end of the shaft element is configured to be mounted to the second part of the second blade bearing (figures 2-6), the second end of the shaft element being opposite to a first end of the shaft element to which the second part of the first blade bearing is to be mounted (bearing adapter 16 connected to the of the other bearings inner ring 21, paragraph 22, figures 2-6), wherein the test rig comprises at least two test load units and at least two respective shaft elements (figures 2-6), wherein each test load unit is configured to apply a load via the respective shaft element to a blade bearing to be tested (figures 2-6), wherein the bearing support is configured to be mounted to the first part of each of the at least two blade bearings to be tested (hub adapter 17 mounted to the bearings on the test stand 10, figures 2-6), and wherein the bearing support is a rotor hub of a wind turbine (figures 1-6), wherein the rotor hub comprises three blade mounts, wherein one, two, or each of the blade mounts is configured to be mounted to the first part of a respective blade bearing to be tested (figures 2-6), wherein the test rig comprises one, two, or three respective test load units and corresponding shaft elements, each test load unit being configured to apply a load via the respective shaft element to the respective blade bearing to be tested (figures 2-6).
With respect to claim 12, Diller teaches wherein the test load unit comprises at least two actuators mounted on opposite sides of a load transfer component (claws 18) that is configured to transfer the load applied by the at least two actuators to the shaft element (figures 5-6).
With respect to claim 14, Diller teaches wherein the test rig comprises a pivoting mechanism for inserting a blade bearing to be tested into the test rig (gondola 11), wherein the pivoting mechanism is configured to allow a pivoting of at least a part of the test load unit into a horizontal orientation to allow the shaft element and at least one blade bearing to be tested to be mounted to the test load unit (interpreted as it is possible to position a gondola 11 in the test stand 10 with bearing adapters 16 pre-mounted outside the test stand 10 on the blade bearings 15 of the gondola 11 and to connect the hub adapter 17 of the test stand 10, paragraph 34, figures 5-6)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diller DE 102013004938 in view of Bushey et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0023629.
With respect to claim 13, Diller teaches the claims invention except a controller configured to control the at least one actuator to apply a predetermined load to the shaft element to test a blade bearing.
Bushey teaches a wind turbine test assembly wherein a controller 80 (FIG. 6) that provides control signals 82 to a hydraulic power source 83 (e.g. pump, accumulators, servo valves, etc.) that in turn is fluidly coupled to each bearing element assembly 44 and 64.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Diller with the controller for providing signals to the actuators as taught by Bushey in order to accurately control the actuating signals.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDDIE KIRKLAND III whose telephone number is (571)272-2232. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John Breene can be reached at (571) 272-4107. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
FREDDIE KIRKLAND III
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855
/Freddie Kirkland III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 8/22/2026
Prosecution Insights